Christians view Humans as unique. To Atheists, that's silly. Is this a big source of acrimony? Please Explain.

Question

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Christians (and some other Believers) claim that God has a special plan for people and that all creation was centered around humans as God's crowning achievement.

Atheists (most, anyway) see humans as simply a natural consequence of the universe, no more special than underarm bacteria, spruce trees, lava flows, or Diet Pepsi. (We are, however, special to ourselves and to other humans.)

Do these differences in underlying assumptions make it difficult to have a conversation about life, death, and purpose? How could bridging this gap be achieved?

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 1

I've long thought this a profound point. The inability to see humans as a species of animal attaches a type of blinker to anyone's thinking, and destroys objectivity.

I can't see how anyone could draw all the significant lessons that are available via the study of other animals if you believe that humans are an entirely unique life-form, without biological precedents. What, for instance, is one to make of other primates' societies and their organisation - and the parallels with ourselves.

Of course Man IS unique - our possession of giant cerebral hemispheres has enabled us to do extraordinary things. But in many ways it's not helpful to consider our special characteristics as primary. A more balanced approach - less prone to hubris - is to consider our enlarged cerebra as no better that the enlarged nose of an elephant, or the jaws of a soldier ant.

There's more to be learned from our similarities to other animals - especially primates - than from our differences.

How, I wonder, do these tenacious anthropocentrists deal with the discovery that our chromosome 2 is in fact a fusion of two chimp chromosomes? This information shows beyond a shadow of doubt that we are a member of the Ape Clade - and that we underwent a specific genetic mutation along the path from our common ancestor with chimpanzees that is preserved forever in every cell in our bodies.

Do they simply ignore this fact? Do they refuse to believe it? Or do they simply - and I fear this must be so in some individuals here - not understand what it means?

CD

Answer 2

"Atheists (most, anyway) see humans as simply a natural consequence of the universe, no more special than underarm bacteria, spruce trees, lava flows, or Diet Pepsi."

would you complain if the prevailing laws treated you on the same level as underarm bacteria... ? hmmmm... that would make the use of a deodorant a capital offense, no ?
While humans are definitely not what fundamentalists and dominionists claim I would hesitate to class them with bacteria. It can be argued quite successfully the evolution of intelligence and self awareness in humans is simply an evolutional mistake, however it is a mistake which makes humans quite different from bacteria. When you intend to make a shovel (as it was perhaps the aim of evolution) and end up making a space shuttle, it is indeed still a mistake, but quite a different in magnitude form the process which created underarm bacteria. I also disagree with your basic premise (the atheist view of human beings).
I also do not agree the view of human beings held by atheists is the source of acrimony and division.

Answer 3

If God made man in his image and we have nothing to do with the apes, how come we share 97% the same genes as chimps? Is god 97% chimp?

And you are missing a point. Each person IS unique, individual and special because of the gene inheritance and their own personal life's journey. However science SHOW this to be true. It is also true of all creatures too. So where as the bible (which does not mention it at all) will lump my pet hamster as just another animal here to service humans science sees it as a very individual being with a history of her own and an evolution which brought it into being.

Answer 4

Well, I feel we are special, even though I'm an atheist. I figure we are Mother Nature's special project, breeding for brains. And as to the development of a soul (assuming we can come up with a reasonable definition of the term), again, we have been bred for it by the laws of survival of the fittest.

Think about it: we do things which are morally commendable because they are also of value to the survival of our species. Maybe our own children, or our own family, or village, or whatever, but ultimately for our species. Other socially organized animals do, too. But we combine that with enough intelligence to go much further than, say, the ants and bees, or even the monkeys.

I suppose what I'm saying is that our civilization evolved, just as surely as all other human and animal characteristics. And, hopefully, will continue to evolve. As John Lennon put it, Imagine . . .

Answer 5

Generally the religious descriptions of the world proceed from statements about our position and meaning first and then go from there - ie: we are a special creation of god therefore, we are here to - bla bla bla etc etc... where as the scientific position is to assume and state nothing about our place in the universe, to go out and do research, gather data, examine the world we live in, and when enough information is obtained to propose a hypothesis based on that information, test the hypothesis to see if it holds up to scrutiny and experimentation. If it does, then and only then does it become an accepted explanation. If it doesn't then the explanation is dropped. Thats the difference.

Answer 6

I am an agnostic, and I must say we do seem to enjoy a sense of uniqueness. I can't think of another creature on the planet that is as bipedal as us (that means walks on two feet, as opposed to four). Common sense would dictate that being bipedal is inefficient: requires more calibration of muscles, greater chance of falling and damaging oneself. Another major difference is language. We can perceive our language and all of our forms of communication as very diverse, although their are animals with intricate means of communication as well. Man's ability to communicate clearly separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom though, in my opinion.

We also keep changing our way of life. Complex societal interactions make this possible. Consider the fact that bees have been making hives since bees were bees. The places man chooses to call his home and his work have changed throughout the centuries, it seems we play a more active role in our own evolution.

Since I'm agnostic, I can't tie this back to God, but you can't deny it seems we have a special place on this, the third rock from the sun, in the solar system.

Edit: Reading some of these makes me wonder if atheist's beliefs are in spite of Christian beliefs.

Answer 7

I view it all as a matter of personal philosophy. We could indeed have a conversation with people of any background if all parties involved resolve not to judge and just accept.
I have conversations all the time with people about all sorts of things- sometimes we even change our minds. Sometimes, all sides change their minds. Now, some people are more open to new philosophies than others, and most people who already have their absolute truth don't really like seeing other truths, but it's still possible with the open-minded people.

Answer 8

You're right--in that I don't see humans as 'divine', unless of course underarm bacteria is as well.
It does make debate difficult, man. Then again, the whole concept of divinity is soooooo abstract that many believers have trouble explaining it anyway.
I like to think opposing views make conversation interesting and not necessarily difficult.

Answer 9

Bridging the gap requires some degree of detached objectivity on the part of both parties involved. There can only be conversation when both agree to set aside emotion to speak, (and listen,) without bias.

I personally don't find that very hard to do - quite honestly - it isn't the atheists who stand in the way of frank and honest discussions but rather it is the religionists and the god-believers who tend to defend their illogical thinking and their beliefs with bias and preconceived notions in mind.

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb62/Randall_Fleck/ANDREW_Carnegie_GIF.gif
[][][] r u randy? [][][]
.

Answer 10

“If God made man in his image and we have nothing to do with the apes, how come we share 97% the same genes as chimps? Is god 97% chimp?”

The “in His image” refers to spirituality, not biology. If you consider it down to the level of DNA, the space shuttle shares about 97% of it’s “DNA” with an erector set. The finished product is dramatically different, though.

What atheists fail to consider is not just what EnviroDude pointed out:

“Where did the matter that formed the universe come from”

Though this is a valid question, the real question arises when one questions the incredibly improbable order and balance, when the result of the big bang should have been utter chaos. The source of that order AND the origin of the matter and energy seems to be the primary question. And, though there is insufficient space to go into details, this in no way requires or even infers an “infinite regression”, something I have debated repeatedly on other websites.

As for the atheist insistence on “proof”, our standards must vary considerably. All of science rests on math, which is fundamentally uncertain (per Godel’s incompleteness theorem) and physics, which is also uncertain (per Heisenberg), and time / space, which no human has properly explained, etc. For example, the atom was once thought to be the “fundamental” particle, but was later discovered to be made up of electrons and protons, which have since been dissected into thousands of still smaller particles. The “proof” accepted by the atheist community is a shifting target. The lack of proof is also excused, as has been done repeatedly within the realm of evolutionary science, from Piltdown man to the Cambrian explosion.

Another example is gravity. We all know it’s there, we can quantify it’s behavior, but no one has a clue how it works, how it is possible for every tiny bit of matter in the universe to be attracted by every other bit of matter, regardless of immense distances. This is just part of what you find to be “natural”. Gravity appears to be real, but, as pointed out by Einstein, it behaves exactly like acceleration. If that is not counter intuitive, what is? We think of it as more like a bunch of stretched springs that are invisible, but it is far more similar to what happens when you put the pedal to the metal in your car. It is almost as though every bit of matter were expanding towards every other bit of matter. Do the math on this as an explanation, and you will be surprised how well it explains so many things. But, of course, that would be absurd! Or, would it? If everything expanded at the same rate, it would be impossible to observe by direct means.

Not to mention, if gravity is no more than acceleration, then we must explain inertia.

If you grew up with light switches, and every time you flipped a switch a light either went on or went off, you might consider this as part of nature. But, you might also recognize design and realize that neither the light nor the switch occurred without intelligent input, and both rely on some source of energy that is not inherent within them.

“(We are, however, special to ourselves and to other humans.)” The real source of the lack of common ground in conversation lies within this statement. You say you are not different from bacteria or Pepsi, yet you are somehow “special”, which (in this context) is synonymous with “different”. In order for us to have a real conversation, we must first agree on terms. What you see as natural, I see as evidence of incredible balance and purposeful order. You contradict yourself in your own presentation. You feel that people are special, but have no idea how to justify that conviction. I do.

Are you just chemistry, or are you not? If you are, why don’t we just end our overpopulation issues and feed the world by slaughtering and eating each other? You do not like that idea, but killing bacteria with your underarm deodorant is perfectly OK. You say that you are not different, but you are convinced that you are.

Make up your mind, and we may be able to find common ground for a conversation.